linux-kernel - Re: Performance overhead of get_cycles

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <475EA54C.4090306@qumranet.com>
Date:	Tue, 11 Dec 2007 16:57:16 +0200
From:	Dor Laor <dor.laor@...il.com>
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: Performance overhead of get_cycles_sync

Andi Kleen wrote:
> [headers rewritten because of gmane crosspost breakage]
>
>   
>> In the latest kernel (2.6.24-rc3) I noticed a drastic performance 
>> decrease for KVM networking.
>>     
>
> That should not have changed for quite some time.
>
> Also it depends on the CPU of course.
>   
I didn't find the exact place of the change but using fedora 2.6.23-8 
there is no problem.
3aefbe0746580a710d4392a884ac1e4aac7c728f turn X86_FEATURE_SYNC_RDTSC  
off for most
intel cpus, but it was committed in May.

>   
>> The reason is many vmexit (exit reason is cpuid instruction) caused by
>> calls to gettimeofday that uses tsc sourceclock.
>> read_tsc calls get_cycles_sync which might call cpuid in order to 
>> serialize the cpu.
>>
>> Can you explain why the cpu needs to be serialized for every gettime call?
>>     
>
> Otherwise RDTSC can be speculated around and happen outside the protection
> of the seqlock and that can sometimes lead to non monotonic time reporting.
>   
What about moving the result into memory and calling mb() instead?
> Anyways after a lot of discussions it turns out there are ways to archive
> this without CPUID and there is a solution implemented for this in ff
> tree which I will submit for .25. It's a little complicated though
> and not a quick fix.
>
>   
>> Do we need to be that accurate? (It will also slightly improve physical 
>> hosts).
>> I believe you have a reason and the answer is yes. In that case can you 
>> replace the serializing instruction
>> with an instruction that does not trigger vmexit? Maybe use 'ltr' for 
>> example?
>>     
>
> ltr doesn't synchronize RDTSC.
>
>   
According to Intel spec it is a serializing instruction along with cpuid 
and others.
> -Andi
>
>   

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/